SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

gains and explained in the order how the “operator” of a scrip, managed the\nprice of the scrip by maintaining a complex nexus of paper entities. He noted that\nShri Vijay Kumar Jain was the initial promoter of the company and SEBI in its\norder No.WTM/RKA/SD/30/2015 dated 17.04.2015 [order passed u/s 11(1), 11(4)\nand

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

section 50C will not be applicable. The CIT(A) also gave direction in the order for AY 2010-11 to assess the balance consideration in AY 2011-12 as business income and not as capital gain as claimed by assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this tribunal. 7. Submission

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

section 50C will not be applicable. The CIT(A) also gave direction in the order for AY 2010-11 to assess the balance consideration in AY 2011-12 as business income and not as capital gain as claimed by assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this tribunal. 7. Submission

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 10(38) exemption of long capital gain to the assessee amounting to Rs.23,72,323/-. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion confirming the impugned addition on account of bogus long term capital gains as under: “5. I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

4 for A.Y. 2013-14 Mangilal L. Chowdhary 10.7 Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Mrs. Bertha T. Almeida v. Income-tax Officer in 14 taxmann.com 171 (Mum.) [2011] in identical facts held as under: *Section 2(47) defines 'transfer' in relation of capital asset to mean sale, exchange or relinquishment of the assets etc. Clause

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

capital gain on sale of land Rs.2,15,37,986/-. Further, the remaining loss of ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Rs.43,72,19,080/- on sale of shares of Paioli Meccanica SPA, Italy is also allowed to carried forward. The A.O; is directed accordingly. Ground Nos.5 & 6 are allowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

capital gain on sale of land Rs.2,15,37,986/-. Further, the remaining loss of ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Rs.43,72,19,080/- on sale of shares of Paioli Meccanica SPA, Italy is also allowed to carried forward. The A.O; is directed accordingly. Ground Nos.5 & 6 are allowed

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

capital gain on sale of land Rs.2,15,37,986/-. Further, the remaining loss of ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Rs.43,72,19,080/- on sale of shares of Paioli Meccanica SPA, Italy is also allowed to carried forward. The A.O; is directed accordingly. Ground Nos.5 & 6 are allowed

RAJANI PRAKASH KASHID,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

4. We find that for charging of capital gain, the assets referred to in section 45 of the Act have to be such, in the acquisition of which, the assessee had incurred a cost. Admittedly, the assessee has not incurred any cost for acquisition of assets under consideration. The Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to show that

SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoresinhagad Technical Education Society Pcit (Central), Pune Smt. Khilare Marg, Off Karve Road, Vs. Pune – 411004 Pan: Aabts9900Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Miss Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

11 and 25 to 33 of the paper book, submitted that the assessee has consistently complied with all statutory requirements and submitted all the relevant documents before the Ld. PCIT. He submitted that law mandates that the registration should be granted based on the genuineness of present activities rather than past disputes. He submitted that the assessee‟s registration

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

4. The A.O. did not accept respondent's claim of long term capital gain\nand added the same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act.\nWhile allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the\naddition made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that\nthe A.O. himself has stated that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

4. The A.O. did not accept respondent's claim of long term capital gain\nand added the same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act.\nWhile allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the\naddition made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that\nthe A.O. himself has stated that

RAJKAMAL STONE METAL WORKS,AMBEGAON KHURD, DIST. PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

section 45(4) are clearly applicable to the present case. 10. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer made

MRS. KAMAL MURLIDHAR MOKASHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

capital gain amount is deposited/invested after due date of furnishing return of income u/s. 139(1) but before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s. 139(4) held : “10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that sub-s. (4) of s. 139 of the Act is, in fact, a proviso

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

4. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in not examining and giving any finding on various latest decision of jurisdictional Bombay High Court and Supreme Court relied on which are on similar issues & facts and wherein additions on account of long term capital gain on sale of alleged penny stock are deleted and these are binding on the assessing officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

4. The A.O. did not accept respondent's claim of long term capital gain\nand added the same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act.\nWhile allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the\naddition made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that\nthe A.O. himself has stated that

AJINKYA ELECTROMELT PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.891/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aabca5142M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-8, Pune

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- 1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Act it be held that, the amount of Rs.22,90,531/- considered by the Assessing Officer as assessable under the head

M/S. SUNNYGOLD WINERIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

4 and sub-paras of the order of CIT(A). The CIT(A) extracted the same in Para 4.1 of his order. Eventually, relying on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd Vs. State of Haryana reported in 14 taxmann.com 103. The CIT(A) held that the transfer